@htownbrown said:

Because the 49ers "played" the Bears... Just as MN played us years ago when we coveted Trent Richardson. They figure out who you want, make you think someone else "on another line" is making a serious offer for that very player, and then they pull the sheep shears out of the desk drawer...

@vagitron said:

I'm just glad the Steelers passed on him.

Me, too... Can't wait for you to tell us how great mini-Watts is...

@htownbrown said:

If the Browns would have given up what it took to move up that far, why on earth did SF take chump change from the Bears? Think about it. It's stupid.

No... because it costs SF their top player on their board. That player has a "value" to them.

So even had we called them with a serious offer, which I doubt we did, we could offer substantially more and they could very well say no. Every slot a trade partner "asks" SF to drop increases the price... and not linearly.

I'll bet SF fielded more calls for the #3 pick than they did the #2.

@taco918 said:

I assume Solomon Thomas probably had something to do with that.

Agree, which means they had no intention of going very far.

@htownbrown said:

If the Browns would have given up what it took to move up that far, why on earth did SF take chump change from the Bears? Think about it. It's stupid.

I assume Solomon Thomas probably had something to do with that.

@the-gipper said:

Browns very well may have made an offer to move from 12 to 2. Bears, knowing that, also made a generous offer. It could have been somewhat of a bidding war. Chicago won. They had #3, and Browns had #12...and Niners saw that perhaps as a much better deal than what the Browns were offering.

If the Browns would have given up what it took to move up that far, why on earth did SF take chump change from the Bears? Think about it. It's stupid.

@htownbrown said:

Browns very well may have made an offer to move from 12 to 2. Bears, knowing that, also made a generous offer. It could have been somewhat of a bidding war. Chicago won. They had #3, and Browns had #12...and Niners saw that perhaps as a much better deal than what the Browns were offering.

@htownbrown said:

Simple: because they definitely thought that there was a chance that the Browns could have move up to #2 to take him. I believe that there were clearly talks about that subject between the Browns and Niners, but when it came down to it, the Niners likely asked way to much of the Browns to do the deal. Going down 1 spot is a lot different than going down 10 spots.

So, it is possible that the Browns put the kibosh on a trade for #2...and the Bears knew they had to step up to beat the Browns price.

@hoorta said:

They saw the same thing some of us here saw in Mitch- potential franchise qb. IF Trubisky turns out as good as some of us think he's going to be- the Bears got a steal. If he winds up like Joey Harrington, well, the Bears screwed up.

Nah- no one else in their right mind would have given up more than the Bears did to land Mitch. The Niners dropped only one spot and still got a potential stud, not the case moving down any further. They would have wanted a Goff\Wentz haul of picks to move down to the Browns #12. I posted the cost prohibitive number it would have cost the Browns to go to #2. The #12, #52, and a first and second next year.

So your saying no one would have paid the price to move to #2?? So why not just wait for SF to pick Thomas?

@htownbrown said:

They saw the same thing some of us here saw in Mitch- potential franchise qb. IF Trubisky turns out as good as some of us think he's going to be- the Bears got a steal. If he winds up like Joey Harrington, well, the Bears screwed up.

Nah- no one else in their right mind would have given up more than the Bears did to land Mitch. The Niners dropped only one spot and still got a potential stud, not the case moving down any further. They would have wanted a Goff\Wentz haul of picks to move down to the Browns #12. I posted the cost prohibitive number it would have cost the Browns to go to #2. The #12, #52, and a first and second next year.

@tour2ma said:

Clear winner is SF... pulled off a double-steal.

Potential second shoulder surgery, didn't listen to saban when specific doctors were said to be the best. Hence the possibility for a second surgery and no one to hold his hand in SF like it was held at Alabama. I think he could be a real problem. I'm just glad the Steelers passed on him.

@htownbrown said:

Bears gonna Bears. :lol: :lol:

Easily the Niners.

To me, the big B.O. is by far still a better QB prospect than Watson, with his little floaters he throws. To get another 1st rounder out of them next year (do we not now have both their first and second round picks?)...that to me is a haul.

Now, I am not saying that B.O. is the second coming of Otto Graham, but I think he is better than Watson. In fact, hopefully come next year the Browns and Texans may be mirror images of each other.....stout defenses ??? and mediocre QBing.

But then, we will have TWO first round picks next year....to get a potential franchise QB then, and they will have none.

Their franchise QB will be Watson.....who I predict to become a bust.

@gumby73 said:

@bbedward said:

49ers for Foster...and raping the bears of course

Clear winner is SF... pulled off a double-steal.

@texasag1969 said:

I agree Bill. Allen's shoulders would concern me, but if the guy stays healthy he'll be a beast.

Mike